What if Jesus didn't die on the cross

[Coreece 190]

Then you elect to just shut up...that's what I thought.

I must admit, I was hoping for some dialogue...

It saddens me to see you cower like this...I had much respect for you.

Perhaps Jack or John would like to take over for you?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Meso 38]

Quote

Wtf do you know about morality? For all I know, If I squash a mosquito, u'd think of me to be a sick sinister killer, yet if I were to abort my child, I'd be a fuckin' hero to you...

Aw cute, I touched a nerve. That sounds like the response of someone who has been smacked down by the cruel hand of logic. Wait, you Christians don't believe in logic, right - I forget.

And you post such replies and then wonder why I'm okay with abortion.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

Quote

Wtf do you know about morality? For all I know, If I squash a mosquito, u'd think of me to be a sick sinister killer, yet if I were to abort my child, I'd be a fuckin' hero to you...

Aw cute, I touched a nerve. That sounds like the response of someone who has been smacked down by the cruel hand of logic. Wait, you Christians don't believe in logic, right - I forget.

And you post such replies and then wonder why I'm okay with abortion.

Damn, now that's a low blow...you know we could get along well in person.

Why judge me falsly on a statement that is practically true?

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[Meso 38]

The best kind of blows are low


And because you challenged my moral values. My agreement with abortion is based off moral values themselves. One's which extend much further past a fetus. It is based on the idea that if humans continue to reproduce the way they are, it's not just semi-developed beings that will be 'harmed', it's the entire planet and everything on it. One less birth is one fraction more time before complete overpopulation destroys nature as we know it.

I just see humans and animals as one and the same, apart from the fact that we have destroyed many of their whole species existence and abuse our top-of-the-food-chain position.

Though that's quite a different topic.

[Coreece 190]

Quote

It is based on the idea that if humans continue to reproduce the way they are

It has more to do with the way they live...

Your secrets are the true reflection of who you really are...

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

Of course there is. 'Secular' evidence like redshift points to conclusions that you reject. By many orders of magnitude. In order for you to maintain your ludicrous ideas you have to say "Oh sure, that's what it's doing now, but it could have been doing something else before!" Problem is, by opening that trap door you open the possibility that what the universe was doing before could be... anything.

You cannot believe what you believe and also use concepts like redshift as evidence of anything that happened in the past. So, try again.

Why would I reject observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation (operational science)? The only problem I have is with some of the “pseudo-science” of today which is built on speculation based on very biased secular presuppositions (historical science).

Distant Starlight

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

The only problem I have is with some of the “pseudo-science” of today which is built on speculation based on very biased secular presuppositions (historical science).

Exactly. You choose to believe that even universal constants could have been wildly different even inside the scope of recorded human history. Therefore you cannot extrapolate anything at all from current observations. According to you, anything we measure today could have been completely different yesterday.

So, what evidence do you have that the universe had a beginning?

Quote

Distant Starlight

Nice link. Once again, simply making stuff up until it fits. And you mention pseudo-science? There are none so fucking blind.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[winsor 186]

Quote

Then you elect to just shut up...that's what I thought.

I must admit, I was hoping for some dialogue...

It saddens me to see you cower like this...I had much respect for you.

Perhaps Jack or John would like to take over for you?

It's just precious when you pretend to know what's going on.

[billvon 2,400]

Both of you cut it out.

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

Quote

Of course there is. 'Secular' evidence like redshift points to conclusions that you reject. By many orders of magnitude. In order for you to maintain your ludicrous ideas you have to say "Oh sure, that's what it's doing now, but it could have been doing something else before!" Problem is, by opening that trap door you open the possibility that what the universe was doing before could be... anything.

You cannot believe what you believe and also use concepts like redshift as evidence of anything that happened in the past. So, try again.

Why would I reject observable, testable, repeatable, and falsifiable experimentation (operational science)? The only problem I have is with some of the “pseudo-science” of today which is built on speculation based on very biased secular presuppositions (historical science).

Distant Starlight

Last night we had coreece(who bases his life on the suspension of rational thought) calling someone out on "intellectual honesty".
This morning we have you (a creationist) accusing people of buying into "pseudo-science".

Can't get any more ironic than that.

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Can't get any more ironic than that.

Beg to differ

A week or two ago Jay accused modern science of coming up with conclusions first and looking for evidence later, while quoting a website that states up front that any evidence that conflicts with 6,000 year creationism must be false no matter what

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[stevebabin 0]

Quote

Quote

Can't get any more ironic than that.

Beg to differ

A week or two ago Jay accused modern science of coming up with conclusions first and looking for evidence later, while quoting a website that states up front that any evidence that conflicts with 6,000 year creationism must be false no matter what

"Science, logic and reason will fly you to the moon. Religion will fly you into buildings."
"Because figuring things out is always better than making shit up."

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

Exactly. You choose to believe that even universal constants could have been wildly different even inside the scope of recorded human history.

Recorded human history isn't that long. I guess you meant to say that constants could have changed during the course of time? I'd say yes. Even with the Big Bang Theory, the idea is that they were probably unified. We weren't there in the beginning and we’d be assuming things were the same based on what we see today.

Quote

Therefore you cannot extrapolate anything at all from current observations. According to you, anything we measure today could have been completely different yesterday.

No. What you can extrapolate (and be sure of) from current observations are things you can observe, test, repeat, and falsify. Anything else is speculative.

Quote

So, what evidence do you have that the universe had a beginning?

I share a lot of the evidence you do in that regard. Both Creation and The Big Bang describe a beginning. However, I wasn’t there. My foundation, which I know you don’t share, is not with the changing ideas of man but with the unchanging word of God (which is the way science used to be before man decided to elevate himself above God). “In the beginning, God created…”

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Recorded human history isn't that long. I guess you meant to say that constants could have changed during the course of time?

Dude. Wake up. You believe that the universe is 6,000 years old. The earliest form of human writing (and therefore, the early limit of recorded human history) discovered is 5,000 years old. Are you really going to split that hair

Tell me, what was so special about the first 1,000 years of creation that universal constants could change then but couldn't since?

Quote

I share a lot of the evidence you do in that regard.

No you don't. There is no scientific evidence that you can point to that suggests the universe had a beginning. You've only got your fairytale.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[devildog 0]

Quote

No you don't. There is no scientific evidence that you can point to that suggests the universe had a beginning. You've only got your fairytale.

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/publiclectures/62

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."

This guy might know a thing or two.

You stop breathing for a few minutes and everyone jumps to conclusions.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

http://www.hawking.org.uk/index.php/lectures/publiclectures/62

"All the evidence seems to indicate, that the universe has not existed forever, but that it had a beginning, about 15 billion years ago."

This guy might know a thing or two.

But Jay doesn't believe him.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

But Jay doesn't believe him.

Psst... jakee... I believe the universe had a beginning.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

But Jay doesn't believe him.

Psst... jakee... I believe the universe had a beginning.

15 billion years ago?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

But Jay doesn't believe him.

Psst... jakee... I believe the universe had a beginning.

15 billion years ago?

No. I disagree with the length of time.

Quote

Scripture doesn't change. Our understanding of it may be enhanced by scientific discoveries, but by definition, it speaks truth without error.

Quote

We must keep in mind, however, the difference between scientific observations and opinions of scientists, especially in historical arenas. Both evolution and creation rely on "unobserved" events—non-repeatable singularities. Both are views of history outside the realm of observational science.

Quote

Rightly observed and interpreted there can be no conflict between science and Scripture.

Does Science Conflict With The Bible?
by John D. Morris, Ph.D.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

But Jay doesn't believe him.

Psst... jakee... I believe the universe had a beginning.

15 billion years ago?

No. I disagree with the length of time.

And the process, and pretty much everything else the evidence indicates. So yeah, you don't believe him.

Oh, and have you figured out why 5,000 years ago was so different from 6,000 years ago yet? I guess if AiG don't have a page about it you're completely lost.

Quote

Rightly observed and interpreted there can be no conflict between science and Scripture.

Translation: When we ignore everything that conflicts, there is no conflict. Well duh.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

And the process, and pretty much everything else the evidence indicates. So yeah, you don't believe him.

Not true. I just don't buy everything hook, line, and sinker...with anyone for that matter...Creationist or not. Neither should you. The conclusions you come up with based on the evidence we see is very much influenced by your presuppositions. My presuppositions are clear. You seem to deny yours.

Quote

Oh, and have you figured out why 5,000 years ago was so different from 6,000 years ago yet?

Not sure where you're going with that. I don't know exactly how old the Earth is. The Bible doesn't say exactly. It does seem to indicate that it's in the range of 10's of thousands of years versus billions of years, though.

Quote

Translation: When we ignore everything that conflicts, there is no conflict. Well duh.

Sounds a lot like New Darwinian Evolutionary theory....or ignoring the possibility of the results of a global flood (as is recorded in the Bible), etc.

[jakee 1,254]

Quote

I just don't buy everything hook, line, and sinker...with anyone for that matter...Creationist or not.

No dude, you've been skinned and gutted by now. Seriously, don't start acting like you're open minded on this, you've been mean enough to the irony meter as it is.

Quote

My presuppositions are clear. You seem to deny yours.

I have one presupposition. That we can learn about the universe by studying the universe. Yours is the opposite.

Quote

Not sure where you're going with that. I don't know exactly how old the Earth is. The Bible doesn't say exactly. It does seem to indicate that it's in the range of 10's of thousands of years versus billions of years, though.

Ah, so you disagree with AiG? They are adamant the genealogy indicates ~6,000. My my, they will be disapointed to hear that you're a denier of the biblical record and an agent of moral corruption in society.

But still, even if we look at a few tens of thousands of years, recorded human history is still a significant portion of that time, and humans have obviously been around for all but a couple of days of it anyway. So, again, why could the universal constants have been subject to wild changes before man learned to write, but not after?

Quote

Sounds a lot like New Darwinian Evolutionary theory....or ignoring the possibility of the results of a global flood (as is recorded in the Bible), etc.

Only if you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and get all your information from biased idiots and liars.

Ah right, yeah. Sorry, forgot for a moment.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[billvon 2,400]

>I don't know exactly how old the Earth is. The Bible doesn't say exactly.

That's the central issue, I think. Most people get their information from more than one source. Again, from a pretty religious source:

"The error of the theologians of the time . . . was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture."

I think creationists make a similar mistake.

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

I have one presupposition. That we can learn about the universe by studying the universe. Yours is the opposite.

I agree. However, I'd say we strive to understand how God created the universe by studying the universe.

Quote

Ah, so you disagree with AiG? They are adamant the genealogy indicates ~6,000. My my, they will be disapointed to hear that you're a denier of the biblical record and an agent of moral corruption in society.

I don't disagree with them. I just don't think we can know exactly. I think they're in the ball park, however.

Quote

But still, even if we look at a few tens of thousands of years, recorded human history is still a significant portion of that time, and humans have obviously been around for all but a couple of days of it anyway. So, again, why could the universal constants have been subject to wild changes before man learned to write, but not after?

I'm not prepared to make the assumptions you just made. It's got nothing to do with the timeframe of written language.

Quote

Only if you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and get all your information from biased idiots and liars.

You're showing your biased presuppositions. Don't worry. It's okay. At least, it's honest.

[jaybird18c 4]

Quote

That's the central issue, I think. Most people get their information from more than one source. Again, from a pretty religious source:

"The error of the theologians of the time . . . was to think that our understanding of the physical world's structure was, in some way, imposed by the literal sense of Sacred Scripture."

I think creationists make a similar mistake.

I can't speak for the accuracy or inaccuracy of every theologian but the Bible can be trusted....literally.